I find it interesting how similar the arguments are for Prigss vs. Pennsylvania and the Obama administration arguments re: Arizona SB1070. Just as the southern slave power wanted no state officials mucking with their slave catchers, the Obama administration doesn’t want state officials reporting illegals to the federal government. Of course they will be fingerprinted first, and if an illegal commits a crime after release by the federals, it will look bad.
Perhaps it would have been better if the slave power had accepted local rules of civil procedure in return for local state help.
In Pennsylvania in Priggs, it seemed that the rules were to establish if the person in question was legally a slave. Rules banning or punishing perjury would seem to support that. I don’t see how the young child of the woman would be legally returned to Maryland, having been born in a free state, and never been a slave. If it was me, I would have convicted Priggs on kidnapping for that, at least. I would have been also interested in understanding how many state officials he had sought help from before deciding to violate Pennsylvania law.
I've illustrated the Original Intent of the Article V clause and you STILL don't see why the finding in Priggs is bogus, do you?
Despite flying in the face of the over 200 year old Rule of Exclusion, the whole 'purpose' of the finding in Priggs was that the implementation of the clause needed to be uniform.
So let's recap exactly where it was at that point, shall we?
-----
The fact that the clause is not under Article I, Section VIII 's Powers of Congress means the Congress cannot legislate it.
Despite the fact the clause IS under Article V, nothing in it enumerates the ability of the States to legislate it.
After the passage of the Act in 1793, every legal authority was bound to enforce it.
In a nutshell, the clause was enforceable by all, yet actionable by none.
That's why the 'uniformity' argument in Priggs is so transparent....How much more UNIFORM did they think it was going to get?
-------
Perhaps it would have been better if the slave power had accepted local rules of civil procedure in return for local state help.
Perhaps it would have been better if the northern states upheld their promised agreements and performed per the terms of the Compact they signed.
Perhaps it would have been better if the northern states upheld the Supreme Law of the Land instead of constantly trying to make 'terms' and' conditions' on already settled law.
The Founders made it simple -
Slave runs away
Slave caught by owner
Owner takes slave to judge and presents case
Judge accept or denies
The end.
No appeals, no making of special rules, no trial by jury...nothing.
Just yes or no.
If you'd bother to reading the Jack v. Martin case from 1835, you'd know that.
The fact that the clause is not under Article I, Section VIII 's Powers of Congress means the Congress cannot legislate it.
Despite the fact the clause IS under Article V, nothing in it enumerates the ability of the States to legislate it.
//////////////
But the fact it was IN the Constitution meant the power had to be somewhere.
This left an ambiguity, and in cases of ambiguity, Congress gets to decide.
After the passage of the Act in 1793, every legal authority was bound to enforce it.
//////////////////
In a nutshell, the clause was enforceable by all, yet actionable by none.
---------------
Again, my apologies. I really shouldn't try to expound on Constitutional Law before I'm awake. :-)